David Ward - Landscape Photography - Into The Light

Highlight this Comment Tim Parkin17/07/2008, 15:48

I was taking a look at these last night and was most jealous.. I particularly liked :

• 25&26 with the basalt columns blob in the water;
• 10 - very disturbing, if only for being in landscape format
• 41 - you had a thing going with those dandelions didn't you!
• 11 - great textures!

The basalt one you've chosen is the most effective though - Did you get any of these ones as LF?

Highlight this Comment Nigel Halliwell17/07/2008, 17:43

Phew that could have been close – the womanagement would have never let me out again!!!!

Highlight this Comment Julian17/07/2008, 20:18

Now you're really just showing off! :-)

Seriously, it's the perfect riposte to those people who reckon it's all about the gear.

Highlight this Comment Dav Thomas17/07/2008, 20:43

Fantastic results from a camera phone, I'm consistently amazed how well my Nokia N95 auto meters, still waiting for Lee to bring out a 20mm range grads though, or better still, someone could bring out a large format camera phone?!

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist18/07/2008, 07:22

Very impressive results! And nice to see so many pictures from one location rather than just the usual one or two. Considering these pictures look great on a computer screen and would probably print OK in a book, why would you want to keep on shooting LF? Is it just so you can get big prints?

I expect Sony Ericsson to be happy with this endorsement - I expect all UK stocks to vanish any time soon.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment Dave18/07/2008, 09:34

I too have been using the camera on my phone to preview images to be taken on 645 film lately, mainly because it always in my pocket and you get to look at the image with both eyes which can be useful.

I've also got a pretty fly cameraphone that gets good results, takes interchangeable lenses, reflex viewing, full control, says "nikon" on the front. Well, i say cameraphone, its not actually got a phone function, but you can gaffertape an old nokia to it no problems.

Highlight this Comment David18/07/2008, 10:07

Hi Tim,

I'm glad you like so many of the images. The basalt column image on this page is the only one that I also made on 5x4 though there were a number of the others that I would have liked to if time had permitted.

OK, I confess! I now have a dandelion habit to add to my window, ferns and doorway habits – I'm not sure how I'll overcome my various addictions, especially as I seem to be becoming addicted to more and more things! Perhaps I need to go to photography rehab...

David

Highlight this Comment David18/07/2008, 10:09

Hi Nigel,

Don't worry, those images are under lock and key, awaiting the moment when I need a favour! ;-)

David

Highlight this Comment David18/07/2008, 10:13

Hi Julian,

I do hope that, as you say, the gallery proves that equipment is far less important than vision. Of course, I'm never going to feel entirely happy about a great shot on a phone camera because I'll always wish that I had made it (if possible!) on LF. Some of these images would have been easy to make on LF, some impossible or very difficult due to technical constraints such as depth of field and the relationship between aperture and shutter speed. But making the images has given me new insights and new inspirations which hopefully I will be able to realise on a "proper" format!

David

Highlight this Comment Graham T18/07/2008, 10:28

David, doesn't your phone camera gallery prove that one of the most difficult areas of photography is to be able to see an image rather than just looking at the landscape. After my first visit to Iceland I am already looking forward to the next one.

Graham

Highlight this Comment David18/07/2008, 10:29

Hi Charles,

The images do look good on screen but that's only because I've resized them. The quality is high for a phone but low for even a point and shoot. They really are sketches rather than "finished" works (given that, as someone famous once said, "A work of art is never finished, only abandoned." perhaps that's enough!?). I certainly wouldn't be happy with their quality though should they be reproduced on paper, either as a print or in a book.

I wouldn't consider abandoning the 5x4 even for a moment as it gives me so much more than mere technical quality and acuity. The method of working with an LF camera is key to my making a deeper connection to my subject; not only because it is slow but also because it forces one to really look. As I've written before, viewing the image upside down on the ground glass has many advantages with regard to composition due to the abstraction of the selected portion of reality from the wider reality. Working under the darkcloth also allows one to see colours in a way that is not possible outside the cloth. Finally, the view camera affords one a degree of control over the plane of focus and over perspective that simply cannot be achieved in any other way. Many of my best images rely upon this control though it may not be evident to the viewer.

It would be nice to think so, but I doubt that the marketing guys at Sony Ericsson would be very impressed with my offerings. I don't think that photographers (as opposed to users of phones with cameras) are really their target market. I doubt that they would even understand what I was trying to do in these images. Of course I may be wrong!

Kind regards

David

Highlight this Comment David18/07/2008, 12:23

Hi Dav,

20mm grads? Sounds like they'd be a little tricky to position accurately. If you weren't careful you'd end up spending more than a second or two to take the snapshot... Who knows where that might lead – maybe even to a "proper camera"? ;-)

David

Highlight this Comment David18/07/2008, 12:26

Hi Dave,

With GPS now available for DSLR's, surely it won't be too long until cameras come with phones rather than the other way around? That will be an interesting turn up for the books...

David

Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews18/07/2008, 13:20

For those who weren't on the Iceland trip, there was a certain amount of soul searching and discussion amongst the photographers as to the merits or otherwise of camera phones and digital compacts. I've found that a combination of a Canon G9 compact (shooting RAW) and a TK45 works well for me, with the G9 pictures outnumbering the 5x4 by about 10:1. From the Iceland trip I have about 300 usable G9 pictures and have just sent off just over 30 5x4 images for developing. Using the live view mode is very akin to using the 5x4 ground glass (I do move the G9 in the wrong direction sometimes, forgetting it's not been rotated). The secret is to see an image, play around with the camera until you get what you saw in the live view, and then press the shutter.

The most important step is still the first one - seeing the image - which is something that I know I've developed a lot better as a result of using 5x4. However, there are some hidden dangers here as people could become dispirited by seeing images such as these taken on just a camera phone, while they're trying to get to grips with their DSLRs or film cameras. I would suggest that one of the reasons these pictures are successful is that they have the 20 plus years of David's photographic experience behind them.

But how does this fit in with the "use a tripod, meter carefully, use grads" that is the basis of L&L landscape courses? Is there a danger of "do as I say, not as I do"? Ultimately I guess it goes back to David's response to Charles: a well executed 5x4 shot will always look better, and yet many of these could not be done on 5x4. For example, my favourite image from the set is the people with a umbrella at Gullfoss. As I said at the time it was taken, very Henri Cartier-Bresson. So perhaps the camera phone and compact is taking the place of the Leica? Should we stop worrying about this and just celebrate the beauty in pictures, no matter how they were taken? More questions than answers at this stage.

Highlight this Comment Guy Aubertin18/07/2008, 15:10

Hi David...at last you've gone public with what we have known for a while...you want to go digital ;-)

Walk away from the darkslide...

I have a Ricoh GX100 for the very same reason - it is rather better than a camera phone and the images are very useful; 'tis a great thing to be able to sketch with a camera. Probably the best proponent of this is Eddie (Ephraums Ed.), truly remarkable results.

Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker18/07/2008, 15:55

Man this blog is a good excuse to avoid working on a Friday afternoon, just hope my boss isn’t reading this! Anyway… I find it fascinating the way that cameras are changing the way we look at the world. We can now see every corner of the world in minute detail and discuss complex ideas with like-minded people (cheers Tim for the hospitality last night by the way.)

I’m still amazed by the ability of such sites as Google earth/maps to see into my neighbours back garden…(only kidding) I personally use it for location scouting, even down to checking out compositions! And… have you guys seen street view? WOW this is amazing! When it's eventually expanded out to cover every road (even footpath) in the world, then you will truly have a window on the world.

But will that window be a good thing? Will the ability to research in great detail destroy the excitement and mystery of a new location, not knowing what is around the corner? It seems to me as thought we are heading very fast into social dark allies and none of us really know how its going to change the up and coming generations… (am I sounding grumpy and old yet?) I mean have you guys seen second life? What is that all about? I have a complicated enough first life!

Anyway I digress, it's Friday and curry and beer are on the cards, have a good weekend guys, Jason.

Highlight this Comment Alison18/07/2008, 16:11

I love the last picture of the orange cone. It reminds me of a very long walk I once took. I didn't need to go when I went but needed to go when I got back despite the fact that I went when I got there!

Highlight this Comment David18/07/2008, 19:03

Hi Alison,

Ah, the loneliness of the long distance wee... ;-)

Highlight this Comment jon19/07/2008, 10:54

Hi David,

Love the phone gallery especially the twisting basalt columns and the stones underneath the rusting remnants of the ship at Dritvik.

A pity about Mr Halliwell's absence.

Cheers Jon

Highlight this Comment joe19/07/2008, 13:16

Hi David,

I seem to remember 18 months or so ago having my leg pulled mercilessly for using a Ricoh digital compact on one of our LF workshops! While I recognise that one of my roles in life is to be the butt of your flair for dishing the ridicule (I'm comfortable with that, as my shrink might say), I hope you will allow myself a certain satisfaction at the sight of your Icelandic phonefolio...

I am sure it has been said before, but an artist makes art with whatever materials are at hand (Andy Goldsworthy springs strangely to mind). In your case Mr Ward, this is now (sometimes) a natty phone, and why not? If the end use is the size of a printed business card, this will doubtless do very nicely.

I have now made around 4000 photographs with a digital compact over the last two years, firstly a Ricoh R4, and since last November with the Ricoh GX100 (RAW capture if needed, usefully wider lens, capability of using the Lee RF75 filter system, with dinky grads). I have enjoyed my photography, including large format, more as a result of this sketch-book-like companionship. Not wishing to mix too many metaphors, but the small camera does help oil the wheels of visual ideas, making deployment of 'the easel and canvas' of the large format camera a more certain process.

I can't help feeling what an incredibly exciting time this is to be a photographer, whatever one's preference in terms of technique or subject matter. The equipment is hugely capable and more user-friendly than when we started out 30 years ago. Of course it is still down to the power of vision, ideas and the desire to communicate. But the proliferation of shooting options has made photography more direct and fun than ever, and that is something to grateful for.

Joe

Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews19/07/2008, 14:29

Joe/David - it does still leave the question of what would you say if someone turned up to a L&L course with just a camera phone? They've seen what can be done, so why spend all that extra money on a DSLR? And just think of the space you save when travelling - that 20 kg of 5x4 kit can be replaced by something that slips into your shirt pocket. Perhaps that "small format workshop" that we've joked about in the past is not far from coming to fruition?

Yes it is an exciting time for photography, and advances in technology are generally a good thing [Chris Dickie's editorial in the latest issue of Ag is very apposite]. I would say that the most significant advance on camera phones is the reduction in shutter lag. The fact that you can get exactly what you see on the live view makes these cameras really usable as a creative tool.

My two nephews - ages 3 and 6 - can now take well exposed, well composed and correctly focused pictures on a digital compact. They just look at the back of the screen and press the shutter when they see something they like. Other than their toilet fetish (boys will be boys!), some of the images are scarily good, and it makes you wonder about your own images.

Highlight this Comment Nigel Simmonds19/07/2008, 15:51

This isn't your first outing with a phone camera (by the way, do we need a new word here, e.g. camerone or phonera depending upon usage?) but the quantity of photos on display is more... definitely the start of the slippery (digital) slope!

On a more serious note, it's interesting that you talk about the concept of 'freedom' in association with the camera phone and not in respect of LF. I guess that you mean freedom of physical position to really nail that image, something which may not be possible quickly or easily with LF. Does this mean that to some extent you don't feel you could always do as wish to get the image on LF, at least in part due to its physical difficulties, and therefore your vision is being constrained? For me, one of the real appeals of LF is the lack of a rigid connection between film and lens, and the liberating effect this permits upon the final image. The sheer difficulty of setting it up is just the price to pay.

Highlight this Comment Jason Theaker19/07/2008, 18:10

“But the small camera does help oil the wheels of visual ideas”

Joe, I totally agree with you! Reasonable value digital photography seems to enable many more people the ability to experiment. The social networking sites such as Flickr, Picasa, (and don't forget blogging) have enabled reflection and feedback on those experiments, fast tracking the development of creative ideas.

David, I have to be honest I was impressed with the quality of the shots from a mobile phone, (God mine is rubbish) but how much control have you over it? I can imagine it depends on the purpose of the shots, but do you think there will ever be a time when the quality of phones / compacts will negate the use of bigger cameras?

Chris, my son uses my compact camera but he hasn’t thought to take it into the toilet yet!!!

Highlight this Comment jason19/07/2008, 23:26

Nigel,

Is it not the image/idea that is important not the process?

I’d like to see somebody having the bottle to go on a L&L with a home made pinhole camera made out of a recycled toilet role and tinfoil! Can you just imagine the conversation…

Highlight this Comment David20/07/2008, 08:15

Hi Joe,

I'm sorry to hear that my brand of ironic humour has driven you into the arms of a shrink! ;-) I guess that my lack of enthusiasm with regards to using a small digital camera just highlights how slow I am at catching on to ideas.

I think that the big revelation for me was that making more images made it easier for me to make images, period. My photographic history has been one where I have made fewer and fewer images over the years. I saw this as a natural progression. I thought that as one got better at photography so one found it harder to make images that excited oneself. To an extent I still believe this to be true. This seems to be a reasonably common attitude; I remember having a conversation with a workshop participant who asked the question, "If you make fewer and fewer images as you get better at photography does this mean that when you reach genius level you don't make any?!"

However, I've realised that there is definitely something to be said for doodling with a camera. It's not quite the same as a musician playing scales (particularly as they would almost certainly be doing it on the same instrument), it's not about merely going through the motions, making images for the sake of making images or shooting things at random in the hope that something will work. It's more like a professional writer writing something for fun – perhaps a postcard or a letter to a loved one. I think fun is the ingredient that the phone camera has re-injected into my photography. I've always been passionate about image making but sometimes I've made the process too serious, the weight of my own expectations has squashed my creativity. With the phone camera there weren't any expectations, photography became play again and that was the real benefit. That said, none of these images excited me in the same way that my LF pictures from Iceland have. These will live longer with me and have a deeper impact.

David

Highlight this Comment David20/07/2008, 08:34

Hi Chris,

What would I say to someone who came on a photography workshop with just a phone camera? Well it wouldn't be the rude phrase that I suspect you're thinking I would say! ;-)

I'd ask if this was their first/only camera and how serious they were about making images. As we've discussed before, vision is the most important thing and this comes from passion, practice and commitment. If they said that they were serious I'd ask to see the images that they had made. If these were good I'd then ask why they weren't using more capable equipment – think of all the things that they could do with a better camera!

It doesn't have to be a DSLR, something like the Ricoh or the G9 would open up so many more opportunities without a weight penalty. There is much to be said for the lightweight approach and I wouldn't censor someone for preferring to carry less kit. I recognise that there's an element of madness in my approach. But I feel that the creative benefits that I get from using an LF camera outweigh the heavy burden I carry.

David

Highlight this Comment David20/07/2008, 09:34

Hi Nigel,

Yes, I do feel that my vision is to an extent constrained by using LF. However, the liberating effect that you refer to is, amongst other factors, the reason why I can't see myself giving up LF or even making another format my chosen means of image production. They say, "No pain, no gain!" and whilst I'm a long way from being a masochist I tend to believe that nothing comes for free in this world and if something seems too easy then it is!

I guess that the freedom I referred to is three fold; temporal, physical and physics. Now you cannae change the laws of physics (as an infamous Chief Engineer once said!) so one of the advantages of using a small format camera is that I can achieve a plane of focus and depth of field that would be impossible in the field with a larger format – I'm thinking here of some of the images of dandelions.

Similarly the physical restrictions of using an LF camera gets in the way of making many images – that and not having a eight foot tall tripod, you try shooting an LF image whilst hand holding the camera above your head to shoot Icelandic horses!

Lastly, the time taken to set up an LF camera means that many images are unobtainable – the single perfect cloud, in image 50 in the gallery, was in the perfect position for no more than a minute.

I'm not sure about "camerone" or "phonera" but Joe mentioned "phontography", when I spoke to him yesterday, and this struck me as an appealing portmanteau word.

David

Highlight this Comment KK20/07/2008, 12:15

Hello David,

I think we could all learn from John Blakemore. He uses his 35mm Nikkormat and FE2 (no they are not digital) for the freedom they give in exploring photographic space (handheld of course). I was at a workshop with him last week and after several days during which he photographed nothing it was a joy to watch him go to work with his 35mm and a macro lens (I believe he has just two macro lenses for his 35mm bodies). I think the better one gets at photography the more one is willing to experiment and to hell with this or that preconceived notion. Of course success is not guaranteed but "what if" is one of the most important questions to ask (as JB pointed out).

Another reason I am making this post is to add a postscript to what I stated on my posting of 20/06/2008 (in response to the thread "It's not just about the light..."). This is what I said then:

"It was great to see Joe citing John Blakemore's fairly recent book (a favourite of mine). Towards the end he has a brief section with the title `Light as the Subject' (pp. 146-149) the pursuit of which he describes as "a difficult, and perhaps impossible aim." He proceeds to discuss the central problem, that of the subject persisting. I must say that the four photographs reproduced in this section don't quite do it for me but perhaps this is a problem of reproduction not capturing subtleties in the original prints or maybe I just need to look at them for longer."

Well I have now had the opportunity to see a sequence of five original prints. I was dumbfounded by their transcendence. Although others were talking, a sense of quietness and inner contemplation as well as joy pervaded me. Supreme master indeed (and a really nice man).

KK.

Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews20/07/2008, 13:34

Having started to process the G9 pictures I took in Iceland, I've come to realise some of the limitations or compromises you have to make.

I'm not ashamed to say that nearly all the pictures were taken in program mode. I think this surprised some of the other tour members who were wielding G9s who expected a 5x4 photographer to a bit of a control freak, but the program mode gets it right most of the time on the shots I do with this camera so why use anything else that would only slow down the process? I will use exposure compensation and selective focus areas from time to time, and I found that things like face detection worked really well on the horses. Some of the results are fantastic, and shooting RAW really does make a difference, but they are not pictures I would contemplate doing on 5x4.

But when you get some subjects, like bracken and lichens, you realise that it would have looked a whole lot better on 5x4. OK, I could have put the G9 on a tripod and played around with filters and stuff, closed down the aperture for more depth of field, etc. but if I'm going to do that why wouldn't I get out the 5x4? That's why I made the change from 35mm in the first place. I was taking 30 minutes to do a 35mm shot, the same time as it takes to do a 5x4.

On previous tours you have ridiculed (in the nicest possible way) my use of a Holga camera. But it really is the same kind of thing. If you are a photographic junkie (and most who read this blog probably are), playing around with different cameras and taking different views can only help your creativity. But what you do need to be able to decide is which camera you're going to use. If I decide to use the Holga, I have already worked out that I don't see a 5x4 picture in the scene. The same is almost true of the G9, although I have been known to rush back for the 5x4 after playing around with ideas on the G9.

Go and get yourself a Holga (or a Diana - they're a bit more solid) and some 120 film and shoot some 6x6 B&W pictures. You'll feel better for it.

Highlight this Comment KK20/07/2008, 14:08

Oops, that should of course be FM2. Many apologies, the very idea that JB would dabble with aperture priority is too bizarre to contemplate. I am prepared to take my punishment, as dictated by the disciplinary committee, like a man.

Highlight this Comment alison20/07/2008, 18:33

As a designer (all be it in training) I come at this discussion from a different point of view. To me, taking a photograph is not a creative process. It is about capturing the image at that moment in time. Only when you take the photograph into a different media and move it forward, does it become a creative process. That being said, it really doesn't matter what you take the photograph with - phone, LF or pinhole camera.

Comments please because this is my next essay title for Uni!!!

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist20/07/2008, 19:26

Hello KK,

Out of interest, were Mr Blakemore's 35mm cameras producing the negatives which gave the transcendent prints or were they producing "sketches" from a subject which he then came back to with a bigger format?

Thank you; best regards,

Charles

Highlight this Comment KK20/07/2008, 21:02

Hello Charles,

The images in question were made on 35mm (handheld) in JB's office and the adjoining corridor walls with a camera he borrowed from the store rooms. It's all in the judgement, printing and around 50 years experience especially his deep thinking over most of that time (which he discusses with clarity and directness).

Highlight this Comment David21/07/2008, 08:27

Hi KK,

Your suggestion that getting better at photography allows one to experiment more ties in, to an extent, with my own experience. The caveat is that the learning process necessarily teaches the photographer which avenues are not worth exploring. But it also constantly opens the eyes of the photographer to new possibilities and here is where one might usefully adopt a "What the hell..." attitude.

This also suggests a kind of cycle during a photographers life; at the beginning they experiment with everything (because they don't know what will and won't work), in their middle years they reduce the amount of experimenting they do as they reach a technical plateau and are comfortable with what they are achieving, in their later years a photographer begins to experiment again in an effort to move beyond what they know and to try and find the limits of what is possible.

David

Highlight this Comment David21/07/2008, 19:09

Hi Alison,

Gosh, did you really mean that photography can't be creative? Have you ever thrown yourself into a pit of vipers before?! ;-) Orrrr... did you mean that you don't feel that you can be creative with a camera? Clarification please!

David

Highlight this Comment Julian21/07/2008, 19:31

Hi David,

I'm sure Alison will be along soon to put things straight but, in the meantime, I have to say that that wasn't my reading of her comment. She was saying that there's nothing intrinsically creative about actually taking a photograph - and she's right. It's an entirely mechanical process. You press the button, the shutter opens and the film or sensor is exposed to the incoming light for a predetermined length of time. No creativity there.

However, Alison does seem to be conveniently ignoring what leads up to the shutter being pressed - all the creative decisions which need to be taken along the way. Her argument, AIUI, is that, for her, actual creativity only happens once the image has been made - i.e. during post-production and presumably by combining images or elements of images in order to create something new.

It's a rather controversial view and I'd even go so far as to say that, around here, it's bordering on the heretical... :-)

Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews22/07/2008, 12:30

Having seen Alison's design work in Iceland, I think she's associating the creation with the production of the final object. So for her, the photograph is no more of a creation than the materials (fabric, sand, paint) being used for the design. It is the combination of these materials that creates the final object. For the pure photographer, the image is the final object. If you follow Julian's ideas about photography being a mechanical process, then so is painting because you're just moving a paint brush (more heresy!). So I would argue that the moment of pressing the shutter is still part of the creative process. David's umbrella and cloud pictures show the importance of pressing the shutter at the right time. As David said in an earlier entry, being able to do this on his camera phone helped to satisfy his creative urges.

Highlight this Comment Alison24/07/2008, 17:07

I guess what I was trying to say (all be it badly) was that, for me, photography is the beginning of the creative process. I take a photograph because it gives me an idea for a design, a pattern repeat or a colour story. I very occasionally take a photo just because it's a great picture. (My Water Aven picture would be an example of that).

I do believe that taking a photograph is a purely mechanical process and what shutter speed etc. you use is not a creative process. Surely how you use your camera or phone to capture that image is just a reflection of how good a mechanic you are (shall I stop now)! You are replicating a great image, not creating it!

I find it hard to appreciate that photographers put all that effort into taking a fantastic picture only to place it on a website and do nothing more, creatively, with it. Do you achieve ultimate satisfaction from this or are you left wanting more?

Perhaps the reason why great photographers such as yourselves, become jaded and tired with their traditional techniques and try alternative cameras is because, technically they have reached the pinnacle but creatively they have not taken the leap into the unknown.

I agree with Chris's comments about landscape painters and portrait painters. If their paintings are true representations of what is in front of them then I don't think this is a particularly creative process. However, just looking at the work of the Impressionists and the Fauvists who painted what they wanted to see and in the colours that they wanted to paint in, I would conclude that their end point has been reached through a creative process.

Highlight this Comment David25/07/2008, 09:03

Hi Alison,

Thanks for posting a clarification of your viewpoint. I can understand that you are using photography primarily as source material for your own art, and don't have a problem with this, but I can't understand why you believe that photography simply cannot be art. So, not surprisingly, I have to disagree with you!

The argument as to whether photography is Art is as old as photography itself. The aspect of photography that you (and the early critics) are concerned with is its mechanical nature. In this view, photographers are just attendants to machines that are seemingly able to illustrate the world in incredible detail without the intervention of the human mind. This is photography as the mere mechanical transcription of reality. Just because photography does describe in amazing detail doesn't mean that this is all it does. What follows from this is the suggestion that photographers don't create, that they only find. This is an illusion on many different levels: all photographs – except, perhaps, those made by an automatic camera such as a Gatso – are directed by the human mind; all photographs entail a transformation of reality of the same order as that inherent in figurative painting and to a greater degree than most figurative sculpture. For modern artists to traduce photography on the basis that its images are merely "found" is deeply ironic given their own history. The Modernist credo in art has largely been based upon the idea that art can be found as well as created as long as the person doing the finding is an artist. This is epitomised by Marcel Duchamp's seminal work The Fountain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) or Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup 1. Black, kettle, the, calling, pot, the – rearrange into a well known phrase or saying! ;-)

Artists from the Renaissance until the discovery of photography expended a lot of effort upon achieving mimesis; they wanted to represent reality in as realistic a way as possible in order to lend their works verity. Photography freed art from this concern and allowed it to concentrate purely upon the realm of the imagination. This is now seen by many as the proper realm for Art. But why should the imagination be a more valid area of study than reality? This assumes that somehow reality is known, simple, fixed and understood. A more naive view is hard to imagine! If Art's true realm is the depiction of the imaginary, the unreal, then surely, by definition, the vast majority of Art produced between the Renaissance and the middle of the 19th Century lies outside this realm. Are you really willing to discard Leonardo and Michelangelo. In fact these two pillars of the art world were not beyond criticism in their own age, Leonardo apparently received criticism for the mechanical nature of painting. If we want to make the argument ad absurdum, we might say that Michelangelo's David is merely a three dimensional illustration of the perfect man and as such is less transformative than a two dimensional photograph of a similar subject.

Perhaps we need to look at some definitions...

cre•a•tiv•ity |ˌkrē-āˈtivitē| noun the use of the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work.

I put it to you (to adopt the courtroom vernacular) that photographers are just as capable of imagination and creative thought as any other group of humans – despite a sub-group's tendency toward Anoraksia! For photography to fail the creativity test posed by this definition it would need to be a purely mechanical exercise. But it isn't!. It is something directed by the mind of the photographer. Whether it is "creative" depends upon the photographer, not upon the camera. Are you really saying that there have been no photographers who were artists? What about Man Ray, Andre Kertesz, Bill Brandt, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Jacques Henri Lartigue, Paul Strand, Alfed Stieglitz or Minor White to name but ten. Were they all just technicians? I'm afraid that an awful lot of art historians would disagree with you.

art |ärt| noun 1 the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

"What is Art?" is one of the longest running questions in philosophy and something that has been an especial preoccupation of art and artists in the twentieth century and to date in the twenty first. There are numerous possible definitions from the dictionary definition above to "Art is what an artist says it is!" to "Art is any image that someone will pay something for." I recommend you read Nigel Warburton's excellent book The Art Question for an in depth analysis. Warburton argues forcibly that the search for a succinct General Theory of Art (my phrase) might be engaging but is ultimately futile. Any definition would be so hedged around with "ifs" and "buts" that it would be ridiculously verbose and unworkable. Instead, he writes, we should study individual cases and decide for ourselves whether that work is art. The corollary of this is that we cannot exclude any media from art just because we haven't yet come across a work in that media that we consider art. So, despite the fact that sweeping generalisations are always good, I'm afraid that you can't exclude photography from art on philosophical grounds.

For me there are only two compelling definitions of art. Firstly, that art is a transformation of reality through the hand and mind of a human and, secondly, that it should move you. Photography is inherently transformative; it collapses four dimensions into two, it changes perspective, it transforms colour and finally (and most importantly!) it transforms the viewer's interpretation of reality. The choice of framing, choice of media, choice of lens, choice of angle, choice of time and choice of composition establish emphasis. These choices are creative, not just technical, because they guide the viewer toward an understanding or open their eyes to new visions or meanings.

And photographs can certainly provoke deep emotional responses – one need only think of the work of some of the world's great portrait photographers or news photographers to realise this; the menacing portrait of Alfred Krupp by Arnold Newman or Robert Capa's extraordinary images of the D-Day landings are but two outstanding examples. Another might be Stuart Franklin's famous image of a protester halting a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square. Warburton says of this image;

There is nothing in the appearance of the photograph, nor in its symbolic functioning, to preclude its being a work of art. Yet that is not, currently, what it is. Even though fine prints of this image are sold by the art market, its current status is not a work of photographic art, but a remarkable journalistic photograph.

This suggests that whether a photograph is considered art or not might be dependent upon the intention of the photographer. Franklin was working as a Magnum photographer not as an artist and hence his images are seen in this light. Warburton goes on to write;

But at this short distance from the events it records, to treat it in some of the ways that artworks are traditionally treated would risk aestheticising the event.

Which suggests that a concentration on aesthetic concerns might hinder the transmission of emotion... I think that art doesn't lie in the object or its means of production but rather in the audience's emotional response to a work; no response and for that audience it's not art. Perhaps that's why you can't see photography as art, perhaps a photograph has never moved you... ? But there is no intrinsic reason why a photograph cannot cause an emotional response as forcefully as a painting, etching, sculpture, screenprint, concerto or any other work of the human imagination. Just because it can describe things well doesn't mean that it can't be evocative. Art isn't confined to "approved" media, it isn't simply about work made using paint brushes or a chisel.

Just because somebody uses a brush it doesn't make them an artist, a poor watercolour is no more art than a poor photograph is. The camera is a tool in the same way that brushes or chisels – or violins! – are tools. What matters is how these tools are wielded in the hands of an artist not whether the tools are simple or complex machines. A poor painter can produce work that's just as mechanistic, just as devoid of emotion, as a poor photographer. What matters about photography is not its extraordinary power to denote what's in front of the camera but its subtle power, in the hands of a great photographer, to connote, to evoke, to be emotive. In short, a photograph becomes art when it moves beyond mere illustration, something that photography is definitely capable of doing.

There, that should give you enough for your essay! ;-)

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson27/07/2008, 18:27

Hi David and the rest of you. Just looked at the Iceland phone pictures, great idea and great images. Some reminded of images made by Arron Siskind.

It strikes me that mobile phones are mainly used for everything else but making phone calls these days.

Regards

Sandy

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist28/07/2008, 22:29

Hello David,

What a great bit of writing! It helps you have been mulling these ideas over for a while, but still it's an excellent summary of the photography-as-art debate. Firstly, however, I would like to point out that Alison never said photography wasn't art. So you got a little carried away on your favourite hobby horse - well worth it, though. Secondly, I note your belief that art must yield emotion as well as be a vehicle of aesthetic considerations. We'll agree to disagree.

There are some interesting bits and pieces coming out of the above discussion around Alison's original posting. I have said previously that photography can divide into creating and recording. Creating an image on the ground glass is far from mechanical - too many choices. Producing a record of the image is however much more mechanical - look at all the wonderful algorithms inside the average SLR of today, or even one's phone. Some elements of creation come in when filtration, exposure duration and film stock are considered (aperture influences the image on the GG, rather than the recording of the image, and therefore comes in the image creation category), but that's about it. For the avoidance of doubt, I consider the image to be the physical, deterministic projection of the real world onto the GG. All this has been said time and again, and needs little more consideration.

The subsequent use of the photograph is however more worthy a subject. What Alison and yourself have in common is the belief that the picture has to be processed in order to increase its value (for the avoidance of doubt, I am calling the recorded image a picture). I am not sure what work Alison carries out, but as I understand, she is processing the very fabric of the picture in a material way. You, David, and many others here, on the other hand, carry out a lot of post-processing in your minds. Your belief in the transcendant picture subtends this, in so far that you are using the picture to transport you and, to some degree, the picture is using you to transport itself - to go beyond the merely illustrative. Personally, I don't see much difference between your two approaches at the picture-processing stage. The nature of your post-processing does however condition the processes leading to the picture. So what?

Thanks for the interesting thoughts.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment David30/07/2008, 09:01

Hi Charles,

You're quite right that Alison doesn't overtly state that photography cannot be art but she does state that "taking a photograph is not a creative process". If making a photograph truly cannot be creative then photography cannot be art since (dictionary definition) Art is "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination". Taking & making are one and the same thing for me, hence my fervent defence of photography as art.

For me, making a photograph is the end process not the beginning of a further journey into "Art". Taking/making a photograph is both technical and creative. (In fact any form of visual art has both creative and mechanical aspects to its creation.) The transparency, for me, is the finished object; prints or other forms of displaying the image are necessary evils for its dissemination. I believe that photographs can be art (with or without a capital "A") in their own right without the need for further "processing" as you put it.

The term post-processing seems a little muddled in your comment and I don't agree with your assertion that I feel that images require "processing" to achieve "increased value". On the one hand you suggest that such processing is a physical process or manipulation of the image. And, on the other that it is a perceptual process, something that happens in the mind of the creator or the viewer. Variations on the latter are always present whenever a human looks at an image so I don't think that they really can be counted as an intentional, discrete process that I apply remotely after the fact. The photographer might make choices that imperfectly direct the viewer toward a particular interpretation but these are made, in my case at least, consciously or subconsciously at the time the image is created. I don't subsequently crop, edit content or alter colour. These physical manipulations might be called post-processing but I don't indulge in them. Alison, as far as I understand, uses photography as source material for paintings or collage work. Post-production would be a valid way of describing this process.

Regards

David

Highlight this Comment Charles Twist30/07/2008, 15:17

Hello David,

I am fine with the first paragraph and accept your logic. Your second paragraph is interesting to me, since it is another way of thinking. I think there is a link here to your discourse on surprise. Do you feel what you call surprise at the sight of the ground glass? Or do you need the transparency to confirm that feeling? What about the "choices that imperfectly direct the viewer " which you mention in the third paragraph: does the imperfection relate to the surprise element by suggesting alternative interpretations?

I disagree with your third paragraph. You say: "Variations on the latter are always present whenever a human looks at an image so I don't think that they really can be counted as an intentional, discrete process that I apply remotely after the fact." I think that one of the things that your type of photography demands of the viewer, is a move beyond mere perception. It demands analysis and, yes, feeling; the reward for this work is added value to the transparency/print/picture. I agree this is not a material process, but you are processing the content of the picture no less. This explains why I wished to (con)fuse the material and the spiritual processes. They are both metamorphoses (or transformations, if you are a latinist).

Moving away from the philosophical to the technical, what do you think of Duratrans as a way of displaying your work? Wouldn't that be less of an evil than the print?

Thank you for your comments.

Best regards, Charles

Highlight this Comment Sheila04/08/2008, 13:43

Good to see you've finally joined us all in the digital age. But also glad to see that you won't be giving up film. I'm still dancing precariously on the fence myself. I can't comment on the art debate. But impressed by your depth of thought and impressive erudition on the subject. As ever.

My comment is more a suggestion for extending the L&L clientele, now you have mobile photography as a new string to your bow. You could be lowering the average age of your clients by aiming some trips at today's youngsters. Though you might have to learn a new language!

I suggest a new course category to add to the 1,2 and 3 boots: Two Heelys for mobile photography.

You might be able to add a new section to next year's brochure, something like this:

R ur mob pix lame, yeah? Wan2 tke random like, off the hook, lush snaps? Lst respect like from yur m8s? Wanna raise yur rankin on piczo? Don’t b a loser, keep it real. Cm on your hols with Lite & L&. Let D dubya show u sm neat trix 4 QL pix, innit? Yeah, he’s a mouldy but as a photo snapper he’s the real shiz, K?

No happy snapping, that’s so rinsed, man!

CW2CU l8rs

You might need to get the above proof-read by a real teenager, before using it!

Sheila

Highlight this Comment David06/08/2008, 18:44

Hi Sheila,

Thank you for your kind comments on my imperfect reasoning. I've actually been a participant of the digital age for quite some time but I'm not sure that as a 'mouldy' I'm the right person to attract the yoof of 2day!

All the best

David

Highlight this Comment Julian07/08/2008, 16:26

So, David, have you actually taken that 5d out of its box yet.... ;-)

Highlight this Comment David07/08/2008, 17:57

Hi Julian,

Well, showing my age I know, but I read that as five (old!) pence and was wondering if you meant put into the box – as in swear box (see "Where was I?" for my numerous lapses into impolite vernacular).

I presume, though, that you mean my Canon 5D... Yes, it's been out of the box and I've also bought a lens for it (a 24 - 105mm L Series) and I have actually pressed the shutter button a couple of times. A couple of weeks ago I even shot a commission on it. Whilst the image quality impressed me I have to say that all the fiddling around with RAW converters and Potato-shop afterwards somewhat took the shine off the experience. Even after all that phaffing the images didn't look as good as the single image that I had shot on the TK. Ho hum, guess I'm still a dinosaur...

David

Highlight this Comment Sandy Wilson08/08/2008, 13:42

Hi David,

I can fully understand your experience in connection with RAW convertors and Photoshop. Since I was forced to convert to digital (through becoming allergic to B/W chemicals) a year and a half ago, I have found that all the fiddling about with Colour Management, Colour Settings, White Balance, RAW files, conversion to Tiff files, Resolution, and Printer Profiles has had an adverse affect on my image making. To quote photographer Tom Ang "In abandoning film...we have had to take on ourselves the burden of controlling colour".

In a sense we are now the photographer and the colour lab techinician rolled into one. As far as I am concerned I would still prefer to be able to send my colour stuff off to a lab for processing and be able to develop and print my own B/W films and prints, as I feel I had more control over the process. Others on this site might say that I could send all of my digital stuff of to a lab for processing, then again I would loose control of how I wanted my images to be.

The main bone of contention with me is getting the COLOUR MANAGEMENT right, otherwise you are on a hiding to nothing.

I do not think you are a dinosaur, I think you should hang on to the analogue process as long as possible.

The weakest area of the digital system is the computer. Mine is at the doctors at the moment and the result of that is I cannot process any my recent digital camera images at all. We all know the only reliable thing about computers is that they are not reliable.

At least this site talks about image making, as most people in my camera club only talk about Colour Management and all the rest of the techno-babble that goes along with digital image making. I am fed up telling them that digital is only a means to an end, and what is important is how we discover, see and make our images, not pixel processing.

Now I must get down of my soap box.

Regards

Sandy

Highlight this Comment Chris Andrews12/08/2008, 23:40

I struggle to see how anyone could get excited about having a picture on a website as the ultimate goal of their photography, but maybe that's just me. It will be low resolution, limited colours and a pale imitation of the original. As David says in one of his entries, the transparency is the ultimate goal of his photographic process and it is the same for me.

I have recently shown some of 5x4 images to a friend of mine as a series of prints from scans I'd done myself. I have to say that I can't get overly excited by scanning, tweaking, and profiling, so tend to take a "that will do" approach to what I do. But it was pointed out to me that if you don't put the same care and attention into this processing as you do into the taking process, then it will not be possible to appreciate the images in their full glory. And my prints just didn't do the pictures justice.

Which leaves me with a dilemma: do I really want to spend more time and effort on "the necessary evils" of scanning, reducing the quality to go on the website and colour profiling for the prints, or do I just keep the transparencies as I know they will only ever be the true representation of what I created, rarely to be seen by anyone else?